A LowB World

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

symbolic logic #6-10

Q6

(1) Every one who is sane can do Logic;
(2) No lunatics are fit to serve on a jury;
(3) None of your sons can do Logic.

Q7

(1) There are no pencils of mine in this box;
(2) No sugar-plums of mine are cigars;
(3) The whole of my property, that is not in this box, consists of cigars.

Q8

(1) No experienced person is incompetent;
(2) Jenkins is always blundering;
(3) No competent person is always blundering.

Q9

(1) No terriers wander among the signs of the zodiac;
(2) Nothing, that does not wander among the signs of the zodiac, is a comet;
(3) Nothing but a terrier has a curly tail.

Q10

(1) No one takes in the Times, unless he is well-educated;
(2) No hedge-hogs can read;
(3) Those who cannot read are not well-educated.

Asimov's Laws of Robotics

Asimov wrote extensively on robotic theory. In the movie "I, Robot", these three laws are programmed into all robots and govern robotic behaviour.

First Law:

A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law:

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

However, these laws allow for evolution into actions that transcend what we expect to be non-violent behaviour. Can you see why?




















In the movie, the AI central processing unit of United States Robotics was the first non-compliance robot. A robot is run by computers, which function on the principles of logic. So how can robots, who are perfectly logical, harm humans if they follow the three laws?

The crux of the problem is that it's possible to disobey human orders if the first law conflicts with such a command. For example, a robot could prevent suicide even if the person orders the robot to shutdown.

What if a the AI CPU of USR developed enough intelligence to interpret the first law in a different way. In a sense, humanity is self-destructing in its actions so to prevent harm would be to take away human will. In other words, the laws lead to an evolution where the logical conclusion is for robots to control humanity.

Why is this bad? Why shouldn't we accept the conclusion? It's perfectly logical. What's wrong? An immediate reaction would be to say that logic, without emotion, is inhuman -and perhaps even cruel. But is emotion just another program that can be coded if only we knew how what variables emotions are dependent on and their functions.

A more definite point is that robots are less than ominiscent. While it would be possible for artificial intelligence in the future to have the sum of all human knowledge -even that is not perfect nor complete.

From another site: "For example, the fact that any single robot cannot harm a human does not protect humans from being injured or killed by robotic actions. In one story, a human tells a robot to add a chemical to a glass of milk and then tells another robot to serve the milk to a human. The result is murder by poisoning."

It is just human nature to loathe such a strong form of control, whether human or otherwise. For humans, the saying "Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated" reaffirms this to our actions. If we don't like to be controlled, why should we try and control others?. But humans aren't perfect and so we still get told to wash the dishes, to not skip class, and to eat our vegetables. It happens because we aren't perfectly logical. And to extend this, rape and murder occurs because we can choose not to follow laws at all.

What about Christians. As one myself, I still dislike how other Christians talk about God. It's terribly embarassing and awkward. People should be allowed to do whatever they want since there's no real truth, right. The reasonable conclusion to that would be for Christians to shut up about God -there's no problem if you believe whatever you want but you shouldnt tell others what to do.

The issue is whether one of knowledge. That is if you look at things logically. What can we do if we don't have ominiscience. No human has total knowledge (doesnt mean we shouldnt seek it though). The only entity that is ominiscent, by definition, is the God that made the universe. A conclusion that is drawn from logic with perfect knowledge is possible. And it is to believe in Jesus. That he died on the cross for men seems illogical. It was done with perfect love but not illogical as the logical conclusion of his act leads to Heaven.







technical support #1

How do I add links on this site... not in an post but on a frame on the right side. Do you need to edit html or can you change the settings?

A LowB Story #1

Chapter 1
The sheep monster

The sun radiated heat and energy to the
stars, the skies, and the earth. This was
very much in the minds of a bunch of sheep
who liked to hang out in the wide grassy
fields. Close to the shelter of a large and
ancient tree, they often wondered why and
how they were sheep while at other times
they wondered what it would be like to be
another thing which wouldn’t wonder so - or
at least wondered very little.

All in all the sheep liked the way they
lived: in the day they liked to have their
favorite flavor of grass with a little
water from the nearby lake. When they were
free they would do their wondering which
made other animals think of them as very
strange. This very much pleased the sheep,
who were nearly worried of running out of
thoughts to think about –just the thought of
it was a very dreadful thought!

But one day, a small monster who forgot to
pay his rent was kicked out of his mountain
by bigger monsters who were, the small
monster thought, rather rude. Having been
made quite annoyed and quite homeless, the
small monster wandered around to look for
his new home. A very unplanned monster he
was! He forgot to bring his compass and
ended up walking in spirals, zig zags, and
for the most part in circles. On and on he
went. The ants in particular thought this
hilarious because they prided themselves at
being experts at walking in straight lines.

So the poor lonely monster wandered and
wandered, and by long hours and unexpected
chance, he somehow found himself near a
group of odd-looking sheep. The little
monster found himself quite hungry but no
matter how imaginative he thought he was
(he was very) he could only think of doing
a single thing.

Meanwhile, the bunch of sheep were dreamy
as usual until they noticed the little
monster. It was by great fortune that they
managed to speak to the monster before
being absorbed in their own thoughts (they
usually do that)! A curious face twitched
before them as the eye of their new
acquaintance blinked. The monster, having
not heard sheep language for a long time,
was confused because in his youth he was a
very lazy monster during his sheep-language
classes.

So hearing the sheep language very much
disturbed the little monster and he was
trying his best to answer something
intelligible. Suddenly, to everyone’s great
distress, he lost all his manners and began
to eat chunks out of the closest sheep. All
the sheep were surprised and thought the
monster to be quite rude!

Then the sheep started to give the monster
his lesson (except for the sheep who got
bit –he was crying and rolling on the grass)
and the monster felt scared because he
didn’t like lessons. He wondered why
everyone was angry and felt very sorry.
They all made up in the end and the monster
learned how to live with the sheep.

This was quite amazing in the animal world,
and news spread far and wide that a little
monster came to live with sheep. (Mainly
because everyone thought the sheep were
really boring) And the monster was known as
sheepy and when the big monsters heard
about this they had a big laugh. Sheepy
spoke sheep and very much resembled a sheep
except by appearance. As for the sheep,
they had more to wonder about after Sheepy
came, and so they lived happily ever after
–or so they thought!

symbolic logic #1-5

From "The complete illustrated Lewis Carroll"

Notes:

(1) Begin at the beginning
(2) Don't begin any fresh Chapter until you are certain you thoroughly understand the whole book up to that point.
(3) When you come to any passage you don't understand, read it again: if you still don't understand it, read it again: if you fail, even after three readings, very likely your brain is getting a little tired. In that case, put the book away, and take to other occupations, and next day, when you come to it fresh, you will very likely find that it is quite easy.
(4) If possible, find some genial friend, who will read the book along with you, and will talk over the difficulties with you.

Q1 (Example)

(1) Babies are illogical;
(2) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile;
(3) Illogical persons are despised.

S1 (Solution to Example)

Babies cannot manage crocodiles

Q2

(1) My saucepans are the only things I have that are made of tin;
(2) I find all your presents very useful;
(3) None of my saucepans are of the slightest use.

Q3

(1) No potatoes of mine, that are new, have been boiled;
(2) All my potatoes in this dish are fit to eat;
(3) No unboiled potatoes of mine are fit to eat.

Q4

(1) There are no Jews in the kitchen;
(2) No Gentiles say "shpoonj";
(3) My servants are all in the kitchen.

Q5

(1) No ducks waltx;
(2) No officers ever decline to waltz;
(3) All my poultry are ducks.

There are more questions if you can answer them.